This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
How an embattled energy storage project in Acton, California, is threatening faster federal permits.

One hour north of Los Angeles, the small town of Acton is experiencing a battery energy storage buildout — and quickly becoming the must-watch frontline in the backlash against lithium-ion energy storage systems. The flashpoint: wildfires.
Like many parts of California, Acton has hot summers with heavy winds, putting it at elevated risk of the kind blaze that makes national headlines. Battery storage fires, while rare, are a unique threat, with relatively little data available about them to help regulators or the public understand the risk. People in Acton wondered: Would they really be safe if a wildfire engulfed a battery storage site, or if a battery failure sparked a new conflagration?
When L.A. County blessed the first battery energy storage system project in Acton last year, developers and local fire officials said they were doing everything in their power to ensure the batteries would meet safety standards. Residents were far from convinced.
“This will turn our community into industrial hell and it’ll erase us from the face of the Earth,” Jacqueline Ayer, a member of Acton’s town council, told me. Ayer is helping lead the local fight against the projects.
I’ve now spent more than a month researching the fight in Acton. In the process, I’ve learned how much — or little — we know about when battery energy storage and wildfires mix. We’ll get to that later in this story. To be honest, debunking battery fire risk wasn’t why I spent a month on Acton. It was what happened when the fears took hold.
Feeling they’d been failed by both the regulatory approval process and the court system, the Acton project’s opponents turned to their representative in Washington, House Republican Mike Garcia. Though Garcia can’t do anything to stop this particular project, he can severely hinder future ones: As Heatmap can exclusively report, after lobbying from Acton, Garcia inserted language into the annual funding bill for the Department of Energy that would block it from implementing a new rule designed to expedite permits for federally funded battery projects.
“What we’re hoping is that [with Garcia] being at the federal level, he’ll shed some light to the people at the top,” said Ruthie Brock of the activist group Acton Takes Action, “because if the top becomes informed, it’ll trickle down to local governments.”
This is why the Acton fight is so important — it demonstrates the risk of failing to obtain community buy-in, which can ricochet in ways no one intended. The political and media environments are quick to sensationalize the downsides of renewable energy, creating a tinderbox atmosphere in which small local fights can quickly become national ones.
On some level, a fight over battery fires going national was inevitable. Across the country, from New York to Washington state, communities are revolting against battery energy storage sites coming to their backyards. Often, those opposed cite the feared threat of fires or explosions.
Fires in battery energy storage systems, a.k.a. BESS, are quite rare. According to what data is available, the number of fires has stayed relatively flat even as deployment has grown drastically. There were fewer than 10 failure events in the U.S. in 2023, and there have been even fewer so far this year.
But when a fire does happen, experts say it can be quite difficult to put out. In some cases, there’s nothing a community can do other than let the blaze run.
“There’s a lack of consensus. There’s a lot of experts out there providing guidance, and that’s something we’re trying to work on with training throughout the country,” Victoria Hutchinson, an engineer with the Fire Protection Research Foundation, told me. “[It’ll] instill some fear in the meantime we figure out the best approach.”
Information on BESS and wildfires is even less available. Guillermo Rein, a professor of fire science and the editor-in-chief of the journal Fire Technology, told me the matter has not really been studied.
“When I say [BESS are] new, I mean really new,” Rein said. “We hardly know how it works when it gets [on] fire and we don’t have many technologies that are proven to work. We have technologies that we wish will work, but proven technologies that work are very rare. That means we have a new hazard we are struggling to understand and in the meantime, we don’t know how to protect against it.”
Los Angeles County approved Acton’s first battery storage system — Humidor, a 300 megawatt project by Hecate Energy — last summer through an expedited “ministerial” process, the local equivalent of a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act. Ministerial reviews and categorical exclusions are used by regulators to skip the drawn out process of an environmental review because they can reasonably predict a lack of significant impact. Joseph Horvath, a spokesperson for L.A. County Planning, gave me a statement defending the approval and stating BESS projects must meet all local and state zoning and fire codes to receive a ministerial approval.
California had identified the Acton community back in 2021 as a potential site for energy storage to protect against future power shut offs. Acton made sense because it’s close to the SoCal Edison Vincent substation, making it well positioned to connect to the grid. There was also a real sense of urgency: To achieve its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, the state estimates it will need to install a projected 52,000 megawatts or more of battery storage. Humidor is the first of what appears to be multiple projects being planned for the area, including two more Hecate facilities according to materials on the company’s website.
Convinced that a battery boom could mix poorly with extreme fire risk, and that the county moved far too fast to approve Humidor, Acton residents sued. The county, they argued, had little reason to conclude the facility would have an insignificant impact on the environment — so few BESS projects have been approved that the county used the standards from a different kind of project — an electrical substation — to draw that conclusion. L.A. County Planning told me they chose this comparison for reasons including the “purpose of BESS and its connection to the larger network for distributive purposes.”
Rein told me that at least when it comes to the fire risk, this isn’t an accurate comparison, and that there’s not actually enough data to claim such a facility would have an insignificant impact. “I would put great efforts into making sure this facility is safe,” he said. “They can’t just say, I met the regulation, I did enough. Because it’s a new hazard.”
Many of those in Acton opposed to the project believe the approval was rushed, and claim that little information was made available to the public as it was going through the county’s process. Furious residents have told county planners that the Acton town council was not notified in advance that an approval was on its way. They testified before the county board of supervisors that Hecate held only a single public meeting to discuss what it intended to build, with little notice given to potentially concerned citizens.
In my experience as a journalist reporting on large energy projects with serious community impacts, transparency is key to getting local buy-in to build a project. For years I covered the mining industry, where innumerable decades of toxic waste spills and labor scandals have forced companies to really innovate and spend serious dough on obtaining “social license to operate,” a term developers and investors use to describe acceptance to a company’s business practices.
This, of course, differs from the YIMBY school of thought that companies and governments should eschew frustrated municipalities to pursue the overriding net good of climate action. There are certainly merits to this argument, especially when it comes to communities that won’t take yes for an answer, and we’ll be exploring case studies supporting that view in future editions of The Fight.
I’m on the fence about whether Acton is one of those cases, though. Ayer, an environmental engineer by trade, told me she supports decarbonization and wants to see climate action happen. She just wants to feel assured the technology is safe.
If it wasn’t a lithium-ion battery storage facility “I would feel comfortable,” she said. “We will shoulder some of the weight. But it isn’t right that we shoulder all of the weight.”
When I tried to talk to Hecate about Acton’s wildfire concerns and how the company had engaged with the community, a company spokesperson, Bobby Howard, declined to make anyone available for an interview citing “ongoing litigation related to the subject.” Howard provided a factbook that said only that Humidor would “meet or exceed” local and state fire codes — without specifying which codes — and detailed some of the outreach the company did, including the public meeting as well as mailers to “thousands of individuals throughout the greater Los Angeles area, including civically engaged individuals throughout Acton.”
Howard declined to answer questions requesting more information about the company’s public outreach and wildfire planning. He did tell the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that Humidor would have “seismic bracing, safety zones around the perimeter, substantial setbacks from parcel boundaries, gravel breaks and a masonry wall around the facility.”
Stanford University senior research scholar and legal energy expert Michael Wara explained to me that in cases like these, having buy-in from the community is important to avoiding litigation and social blowback. “That is losing,” Wara said. “You have not served your client if you end up in litigation.”
“Having a process by which people are informed about a project and have an opportunity to provide input is important for buy-in for all kinds of projects related to the energy transition if you want to build in a democratic society,” he said. “Is it really the fire risk the community is concerned about?”
When it comes to the Acton battery fight, it’s the fears of fire that scare me the most, not the fire itself.
I sought reasons to be optimistic about putting battery energy storage in areas like Acton that are prone to wildfire because, well, California is essentially one big fire risk zone. James Campbell, a wildfire policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that battery energy storage decreases net wildfire risk compared to gas storage tanks and pipelines. “If we consider the whole-climate trade-offs, battery systems are much safer,” he said.
On its end, Hecate claimed in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors that a BESS fire has never traveled off-site, and that because the fires are fueled by flammable gasses, there is minimal risk of embers traveling elsewhere and igniting grass or bushes. The company pointed me to this letter when I reached out for comment.
“Nothing about fire risk mitigation is about certainty. It’s more, risk mitigation and fire is kind of like wearing a seatbelt,” Wara told me. “If you’re going 120 miles an hour down the highway and you get in a high-speed collision, your seatbelt will not save you. [But] there’s rapid advances in how these systems work.”
In the end, he added, meeting California’s carbon emissions targets will “probably mean building somewhere that there is non-trivial wildfire risk.”
What’s happening to offshore wind should be a cautionary tale for developers considering whether sinking time and money into community relations is really worth it: Last year, coastal fishermen and beach town mayors in New Jersey joined forces with fossil fuel funding and right-wing agitators to foment a conspiracy-infused campaign against offshore wind that has truly rattled the future of the industry.
Part of that offshore wind backlash grew out of New Jersey Republicans in Congress using the pulpit of their offices and filing amendments to legislation. As Garcia takes up Acton’s cause, I do wonder whether battery energy storage might be next. November’s election makes it less likely his language hindering expedited approvals for BESS projects will make it into the final funding bill, and Garcia’s office did not respond to requests to discuss its prospects.
But regardless, it’s an ember that could become a fire of its own.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.